Evidence of meeting #13 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We'll call this to order. We are here today, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, November 3, 2011, on Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Canada Elections Act.
We're in public doing clause-by-clause on this bill.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
We're receiving submissions; they're in front of me now. I think we got them yesterday. I understand these just came in recently and they had to be translated. Where I'm going with this, Mr. Chair, is questioning how we are in a situation where important input in terms of submissions is coming at a point where it's all but impossible to take anything they say into account, when we're at the stage to actually deal with the bill clause by clause.
I'm raising it as a concern, seeking your thoughts on...anything about it. Obviously, it's not good that we're getting this now, when it could have impacted on our thinking. It's a bit late.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
All I can suggest, Mr. Christopherson, is that we had our timeline fairly solid. We asked everyone to respond in our timeline. There are many that haven't responded at all, so we can only assume they want not to respond. Some responded late.
That's the best I can offer you, that they were all given our timelines and how this was to flow.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, just for clarification, were they given a timeline suggesting that if you don't make it by such and such a date, it's really not going to be able to impact on the process? Were you able to go that far with them?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I did not speak to these people; the clerk did on our behalf. The analysts and I have met on this. There have certainly been some follow-up e-mails that took place as late as last week to ask, “Are you going to send us anything?” So I can only suggest yes.
If you'd like to respond to it, you may.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Michelle Tittley
When I solicited briefs on behalf of the committee, the e-mail indicated that the briefs should be submitted as soon as possible. When I did some follow-up calls with the provinces, as was discussed at the last meeting, I indicated that the date the committee was planning to proceed to clause-by-clause was today. The original e-mails I sent out did not include a date because the date for clause-by-clause had not been officially determined at that point, and that's why I used the caveat “as soon as possible”.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I have one more question, Chair. Did any of the provinces or territories respond?
The Clerk
I did have a phone call this morning from one of the provinces asking whether or not it was too late to submit something at this point. I indicated that the committee was planning to do clause-by-clause today, unsure if the committee would finish it today or at their next meeting. But I also indicated that even if the committee process at this level were completed, there would likely be other opportunities to provide feedback through the other stages of the legislative process.
NDP
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you.
Okay. It's disappointing, but thanks for the explanation, Chair. I appreciate it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We have two witnesses with us today from the Privy Council Office: David Anderson and Jean-François Morin. Thank you for coming today and helping us with this. If you will bear with me, this is my first clause-by-clause as the chair, so we're going to get through this as smoothly as possible.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the preamble and clause 1 is postponed. We'll call for clause 2.
(On clause 2)
Under clause 2 we have a Liberal amendment, LIB-1.
Mr. Garneau.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Of course, as you know by now, the Liberal position is that we should be attempting, in reviewing this situation.... In the interest of making changes that are cost-conscious as well as breaking the cycle of continuously adding more seats every ten years, we have made a number of statements. The amendments we propose here back up those statements.
What we've proposed is a way of staying at 308. We think this is in the interest of the country. We think this is an opportune time, with a majority government, to make that big change. As a result, amendment LIB-1, as you can see from reading it, is a change from the current legislation, essentially talking about establishing the quotient at 308. I believe all of the members understand what's being said in that amendment.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something. It says here, “Bill C-20, in clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 4 and 5 on page 3”, but aren't lines 4 and 5 in clause 1 rather than clause 2?
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
My apologies, I'm.... No, I think I'm right here.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
It's page 3 of the draft bill, right?
Conservative
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Okay, I see what's going on. My apologies.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Further comment on LIB-1?
Seeing none, I'll call for the vote.
(Amendment negatived)
On LIB-2?